A new teaching forum to aid the promotion of vertical integration of basic and clinical sciences...
11
12/11/2013 1 Mr Ramawad Soobrah Miss S. Mallappa, Mr R. Reichert, Dr D. Vaughan, Dr A. Castello- Cortes, Dr S. Bhattacharyya, Dr N. Tanna, Miss J. Pitkin, Prof S. Chadwick Northwick Park Hospital, London Vertical Integration: basic sciences are taught throughout the study parallel to and integrated with clinical subjects 1 ‘…students' retention of basic science material after the preclinical years is generally poor’ 2 1. Lie N. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1995; 115(9): 1067-71. 2. Spencer AL, et al. Academic Medicine. 2008; 83(7): 662-9.
Transcript of A new teaching forum to aid the promotion of vertical integration of basic and clinical sciences...
12/11/2013
1
Mr Ramawad Soobrah
Miss S. Mallappa, Mr R. Reichert, Dr D. Vaughan, Dr A. Castello-Cortes, Dr S. Bhattacharyya, Dr N. Tanna, Miss J. Pitkin,
Prof S. Chadwick
Northwick Park Hospital, London
Vertical Integration: basic sciences are taught throughout the study parallel to and integrated with clinical subjects 1
‘…students' retention of basic science material after the preclinical years is generally poor’2
1. Lie N. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1995; 115(9): 1067-71.
2. Spencer AL, et al. Academic Medicine. 2008; 83(7): 662-9.
12/11/2013
2
‘…vertical integration supports PBL and stimulates deep and lifelong learning’3
Tomorrow’s Doctors (2009) Design and delivering of curriculum:4 ‘The curriculum will be structured to provide a balance of
learning opportunities and to integrate the learning of basic and
clinical sciences, enabling students to link theory and practice.”
3. Dahle LO, et al. Medical Teacher. 2002; 24(3): 280-5.
4. General Medical Council. Tomorrow’s Doctors; Sept 2009.
New teaching programme
March 2010 – May 2011
4 cohorts (~ 45 students/cohort) 10-weeks attachment
Feedback forms:6-point Likert scale
[ 1 = strongly disagree / 6 = strongly agree ]
12/11/2013
3
6 Consultants (Surgery/Anaesth/Medicine)
Pharmacist Consultant
2 Teaching Fellows
Students
1 real patient
1st Part (15 mins)
Patient introduction
One group of students does case presentation
Interaction with audience
2nd Part (45 mins)
Anatomy / Physiology / Histology / Pharmacology topics
Clinical management issues
Summary handout
12/11/2013
4
125 students
Graduate entry students – 25
9 sessions (8 surgical + 1 medical)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Strongly disagree Moderately disagree
Slightly disagree Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree
nu
mber
Mean score = 4.3
I understand the meaning of the term Vertical Integration.
12/11/2013
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Strongly disagree Moderately disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree
nu
mber
Mean score = 4.4
I understand the usefulness of Vertical integration in relation to my general
training
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Strongly disagree Moderately disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree
nu
mber
Mean score = 4.7
I think that the presence of a REAL patient makes the learning experience
more memorable.
12/11/2013
6
Insufficient
details
Sufficient
details
Too much
details
Overall, was the depth of topics coverage:
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Strongly disagree Moderately
disagree
Slightly disagree Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree
nu
mber
Mean score = 4.5
I found these sessions of integrating basic sciences and pathology useful
12/11/2013
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Strongly disagree Moderately
disagree
Slightly disagree Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree
nu
mber
Mean score = 4.3
I prefer this form of teaching over lectures.
Consultants
Teaching
Fellows
Specialist
trainees
Foundation
doctors
Combination
I prefer the basic science to be taught by:
12/11/2013
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Strongly disagree Moderately
disagree
Slightly disagree Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree
nu
mber
Mean score = 4.4
I would like to see more similar sessions in my medical curriculum
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Strongly disagree Moderately
disagree
Slightly disagree Slightly agree Moderately agree Strongly agree
nu
mber
Mean score = 4.5
I enjoyed attending these two sessions.
12/11/2013
9
Cons offered lots of advanced knowledge and taught in a very
easy way
Enjoyable lecture series … very interactive
really well organised teaching ...
Appreciate effort and time provided to maximise our
learning
12/11/2013
10
some topics covered were not too relevant for
our exams No need for real patient as logistical nightmare
good idea in principle, but not close to
exams provide opportunity for all groups to present
more complex cases that don't
have clear diagnosis
Overall, sessions useful and enjoyable –
(supplementary to lectures)
ensure at the outset that students are aware of the
concept of vertical integration and its clinical
relevance.
Importance of staying largely within the confines of
the curriculum
Offer similar style of teaching to “pre-clinical” students
12/11/2013
11
1. Lie N. [Traditional and non-traditional curricula. Definitions and terminology].
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1995 Mar 30;115(9):1067-71.
2. Spencer AL, Brosenitsch T, Levine AS, Kanter SL. Back to the basic sciences: an
innovative approach to teaching senior medical students how best to integrate
basic science and clinical medicine. Academic Medicine. 2008 Jul;83(7):662-9.
3. Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J, Fallsberg MB, Rundquist I and Hammar M. Pros and
cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a
problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum: examples and experiences
from Linkoumlping, Sweden. Medical Teacher. 2002 May;24(3):280-5.
4. General Medical Council. Tomorrow’s Doctors: Outcomes and standards for
undergraduate medical education. London: General Medical Council, Sept 2009.
